Maine Dredge Team meeting, August 26, 2024

 On August 26, 2024 The Maine Dredge Team meet to discuss active and upcoming projects and proposals requiring dredging 

Intro of Dredge Team members & public attendees 14minutes

Searsport "Windport" Discussion  9 minutes

More to come

Penobscot Bay Dredging History 1988 -2007

Dredging articles and audio about  Searsport, Belfast, Rockland and Brewer proposals 1988 - 2007

1988 Sears Island Dredge
BDN Dredging in Sears Island Channel causes major losses for many Maine Lobstermen

2000 Mack Pt Dredge
BDN: Mack Pt dredging to be reduced  June 21, 2000

2002 Baywide Dredge
 Working Waterfront: Dredge committee wraps it up[on Mack Point & Rockland Disposal Site]

2002 Belfast Harbor Dredge 
BDN: Belfast Harbor Set For Dredging

2003 Belfast Harbor Dredge
BDN: Belfast dredging nears completion


2007 Lower Penobscot River Dredge (audio)
DMR's Brian Swan opens meeting on dredge plan for Penobscot River site in Brewer  (mp3)  9/1107

Maine Legis' Environment and Natural Resources Comm gives ONTP to Pen Bay dredge sampling reform bill

LD 1287 An Act To Protect the Penobscot River and Penobscot Bay from Mercury Contamination  had its hearing  before the  state Legislature's Environment and Natural Resources  Committee on April 11th and its worksession April 17, 2019.
Listen to the 21minute  worksession

While supporters left the public hearing feeling they'd gotten some traction, six days later  the committee spent 21 minutes considering  LD 1287 and the testimony they'd received, and  a DEP official give a clarification before voting unanimously Ought Not To Pass, effectively killing the bill.  

A last minute flurry when a late arriving letter from the Penobscot Nation was read  silently by  the  Environment and Natural Resources  Committee chair, just before the ONTP vote.  The letter wasn't described audibly, but will shortly show up on the committee website

Read testimony submitted concerning LD 1287 An Act To Protect the Penobscot River and Penobscot Bay from Mercury Contamination.   Click on names for pdf files.

Bennett, Nick Natural Resources Council of Maine (55 KB)

Bergeron, Mark	Department of Environmental Protection	(112 KB)
Brophy, Sally	Belfast	(32 KB)
Capwell, Deborah	Belfast	(41 KB)
Charles, Natalie	Belfast	(23 KB)
Cooney, Amanda	Resident	(32 KB)
Cotter, Edward	Nordic Aquafarms	(70 KB)
Davis, Dan	Porter	(79 KB)
Dodge, Janice	Maine State Legislature	(87 KB)
Gideonse, Hendrick	Brooklin	(58 KB)
Gillies, Archibald	Town of Islesboro	(79 KB)
Gillway, James	Searsport	(72 KB)
Hatch, Conny	Belfast	(30 KB)
Kittredge, Thomas	Belfast City Council	(129 KB)
McCarron, Patrice	Maine Lobstermen's Association	(76 KB)
Miller, Stephen	Islesboro Islands Trust	(159 KB)
Morrison, Kaitlin	Natural Resources Defense Council	(51 KB)
Olsen, Virginia	Maine Lobstering Union	(73 KB)
Schlueter, Erica	Belfast	(48 KB)
Shagas, Kathryn	Belfast	(48 KB)
Shankle, Patsy	Surry	(32 KB)
Tucker, Kim	Lincolnville	(1031 KB)
Walton, Tim	Cianbro	(58 KB)

Rockland Harbor History, 1999. MBNA dredges harbor near new waterfront facility, has spoils trucked to Rockland Quarry Dump.

Prock Marine's dredger and barge work with George C Hall trucks to move sediments from harbor floor to Rockland's Quarry Dump, 2006. A photo essay. Scroll down for photos

Flash forward to trucks dumping spoils into Rockland Quarry dump from Old County Roadside

Rockland Harbor Commission 7/19/17 mtg ponders fish pier dredge issues, weighs costs of alternatives. AUDIO

At their  July 19, 2017 meeting  the Rockland Harbor Mgmt Commission discussed  plans to  dredge the sides and end of the Rockland Fish Pier and dump the spoils either on Snow Marine Park or at the Rockland Disposal Site in mid Bay Background info.

Audio recordings of the two Fish Pier dredge plan-related discussions at the meeting. Below the meeting photo is a recording from the June 27th mtg of the Harbor Commission about the dredge plan.   

Part 1  "Fish Pier Dredge Report & discussion. 8 minutes 

Part 2, "Snow Marine Park Spoils Report" 7min 44sec


Harbor Commission 6/27/17 
Fish Pier Dredge Report, discussion  6 min 13sec

Searsport Harbor dredge plans:two updates. Plus Camden & Blue Hill dredge news

Maine  Dredging Team Updates 

The Maine Dredging Team today released minutes from its October 11, 2016 meeting in Portland.  The team is led by Maine DOT  and the Army Corps of Engineers  and includes other state and federal agencies.  At the meeting, the Army Corps of  Engineers (ACOE)reviewed  the status of current navigation improvement projects in Maine. 

Below are sections from the report about Searsport Harbor,  Camden Harbor & Blue Hill Bay.  Read full 2 page report here. (pdf)  *** Meeting participants list (pdf)

Searsport Harbor (1). Ed O’Donnell (ACOE) explained that, at the request of MaineDOT, the ACOE is evaluating options for maintenance dredging of the existing federal project as a separate project, independent of the related proposed navigation improvement project. See above. Mr. O’Donnell clarified that the maintenance dredging project would be confined to the boundaries of the existing federal project, and involves dredging about 40,000 cy of material near the piers. Mr. O’Donnell further explained that ACOE is looking at various disposal options, would like to place the dredged material in a suitable upland location, and is awaiting further information from MaineDOT. 

Rob Elder (MaineDOT) noted that Maine DOT has retained an environmental consulting firm to investigate to assess upland disposal alternatives. In response to questions, 

Jay Clement (ACOE) indicated that he had no knowledge of discussions of potential dredging in the Penobscot River and placement of dredged materials in a CAD cell to be built off Castine and Cape Jellison as part of the federal court-ordered cleanup of mercury contamination. Mr. Clement said he’d check with colleagues and provide follow information. In response to the questions, Mr. Clement further explained that any such dredging and disposal project would require applicable state and federal permits, applications for which would be processed with public notice and opportunity for comment and in consultation with natural resources agencies. Mr. Clement further explained that a project-specific EA would prepared and would be the basis for determining whether an EIS would be appropriate to ensure a hard look at environmental effects.

Searsport Harbor (2) Ed O’Donnell (ACOE) explained that, at the request of MaineDOT, the ACOE is evaluating options for maintenance dredging of the existing federal project as a separate project, independent of the related proposed navigation improvement project. See above.

Searsport Harbor. Mack Point dredging, 1966.

Ed O’Donnell clarified that the maintenance dredging project would be confined to the boundaries of the existing federal project, and involves dredging about 40,000 cy of material near the piers. Mr. O’Donnell further explained that ACOE is looking at various disposal options, would like to place the dredged material in a suitable upland location, and is awaiting further information from MaineDOT.   Rob Elder (MDOT)noted that MaineDOT has retained an environmental consulting firm to investigate to assess upland disposal alternatives.

In response to questions, Jay Clement (ACOE) indicated that he had no knowledge of discussions of potential dredging in the Penobscot River and placement of dredged materials in a CAD cell to be built off Castine and Cape Jellison as part of the federal court-ordered cleanup of mercury contamination.  Mr. Clement said he’d check with colleagues and provide follow information. In response to the questions, Mr. Clement further explained that any such dredging and disposal project would require applicable state and federal permits, applications for which would be processed with public notice and opportunity for comment and in consultation with natural resources agencies. Mr. Clement further explained that a project-specific EA would prepared and would be the basis for determining whether an EIS would be appropriate to ensure a hard look at environmental effects.

Camden Harbor .  Mark Habel (ACOE) reported that ACOE headquarters approved federal involvement in a feasibility study of a proposal to improve the existing breakwater. Work on this project remains on-hold pending execution of a feasibility cost-sharing agreement with the Town of Camden pursuant to which the town would be obligated to fund 50% of the study’s cost.  The ACOE awaits the Town’s decision.  Note This project has been "on hold" since at least May, 2016.      Camden Harbor Navigation Project

Blue Hill Bay. Mark Habel (ACOE) said that the Town of Blue Hill and the ACOE have entered into a cooperative agreement for the on-going feasibility study for this project. which involves a proposed shallow-draft channel and turning basin. See news story.10/20/16 Environmental sampling showed gasoline contamination in some areas where dredging had been planned, and additional sampling showed this to be confined to surface sediments, with clean glacial till comprising the bulk of the material to be dredged. The ACOE and town are also looking at reconfiguring the turning basin to minimize the volume of contaminated material needing removal.

Maine Dredge Team March 7, 2016 meetings Audio mp3s of the interagency meeting

Monday March 7th, the Maine Interagency Dredge Team met in Augusta. 

Listen to audio from the event.

Intro of Dredge team 4min 19sec |

Part 1 21 min |

Part 2 22min |

Part 3. 16min

Participants were there to discuss dredging projects underway and under consideration. This included the Searport Harbor expansion dredge project, as well as other harbors along the Maine coast.
The public was represented by eco-attorney Kim Ervin Tucker of Lincolnville Beach, Becky Bartovics, Maine Sierra Club, North Haven Island, and Ron Huber, Friends of Penobscot Bay, Rockland.   The meeting allowed public participation by speakerphone 

The dredge team included: 
Pete Tischbein, Army Corp Craig Martin, navigation section, ACOE Wendy ____ Army Corp of Engineers planning John Chelley Chief of planning, f Army Corps Mark Habel Corps new eng, navigation Ed O'Donnel chief navigation section and the ONF program Dennis Nault Maine DMR Rob Elder MDOT trade office Maine DEP ____ Green Paul Mercer, commissioner DEP Mark Bergeron on MDEP Maine Geological Survey Maine Port Authority - Dredge committee Patty Aho, Sen Collins office staffer, Sen Collins for York County Pingree staffer Portland Senator Angus King staffer Tom Dobbins Portland harbor commission Jim Katz Saco coastal waters chief Patrick Fox Saco Payne, Normandeau Associates Biddeford harbor commission Wells harbormaster & town manager
Also attending: Maine Lobstering Union members (3) Kim Tucker Lawyer for Maine Lobstering Union David Black, Belfast Zone D lobsterman

ABOUT THE MEETING

The meeting was frustrating for critics of the Searport harbor dredge plan (aerial photo) . Dredging officials told Tucker at first that they had absolutely no new information about when the withdrawn Searsport harbor expansion dredge project might be reactivated. She managed to pull a few things out of them, like the identity of the till-now army corps officials in DC are who will decide when the Sarsport : Tab Brown, Army Corp Chief of Policy Regarding the Big Gas plan, the Corp's <Edward.G.O'Donnell@nae02.usace.army.mil>, told Huber that they have not received any communications at all about natural gas pipelines coming down from Massachusetts to the Penobscot Bay coast (with all the stream & river crossings required by such pipelines etc, the Corp will be involved. Huber also brought up the failing condition of the surface of the Rockland Breakwater, which has reduced pedestrian travel to the Rockland Breakwater Lighthouse. He said that the Rockland Harbor Commission was concerned that if they complained, the Corps might shut off pedestrian access entirely. Corp official Ed O'Donnell asked Huber to forward him some details.

The meeting was frustrating for opponents of the Army Corps of Engineers massive dredge plan for Searsport harbor:  It seemed that  try as they might, it was near impossible to get details from the army corps staff there on when the "withdrawn" application would become active again.   Federal officials claimed to have no information! Check out this exchange between Kim Ervin Tucker and an Army Corps official 

Q: What is the time frame you're talking about resurrecting this during the course of 2016?
A. We don't know.
Q: Who in DC specifically are you working with, what office?
A. Planning and Policy.
Q: A specific person there involved in that ?
A. Not a specific person, but  Tab Brown is the chief of that.
Q: Was there anything in particular you all are looking at?  Pockmarks? What specifically is now being re-evaluated for that project?
A.We don't know yet
Q: When will you know?
A: laughs
Q: Before the next team meeting? Will there be some activity taken before the next dredge team meeting?
AThe corps and DOT have to do a lot of talking, before the half stretch.
Q Thank you. 

----------------------------------------

 To get notified about  future  Maine  dredge meetings  write to  Todd Burrowes  at the Maine coastal program <Todd.Burrowes@maine.gov and ask him to put you on the list.   Burrowes is the Maine Coastal Program's "Federal Consistency Coordinator", meaning he's the contact when fed permit-requiring projects - including dredging but also  shoreline development like  riprapping  & piers-  come up. Coastal program phone: (207) 287-3200.

Maine BEP won't take jurisdiction over Searsport megadredge plan. AUDIO Board uncertain whether Searsport & Belfast are separate towns(?)

On July 16th the Maine Board of Environmental Protection voted NOT to assume jurisdiction over the controversial Searsport Harbor "channel widening"  dredge project.
Listen below to recordings of each speaker and  each board discussion that took place at the meeting.

* BEP Chair James Parker opens the  meeting  1min 43 sec

* Patricia Aho introduction 3min

* Commissioner's report_Pat Aho  5min

* Chairman begins dredging  application part of meeting 2min 6sec

* MDEP Mark Bergeron &  Commissioner Patricia Aho. 4min 32 sec

* MDEP Commissioner Aho's anti jurisdiction rationale 11min 45 sec

* Chairman introduces public comment section. 47 seconds

* Steve Hinchman, attorney for Islesboro Island Trust 21min 52sec

* Kim Ervin Tucker, attorney  for Maine Lobstering Union 31min 46 sec

* Arch Gillies  Islesboro, Armindy McFadden, Whales Tooth Pub, aquaculturist 17min 20sec

*  Ron Huber Friends of Penobscot Bay, David Black lobsterman, Wayne Canning lobsterman 19min 43 sec

* Christopher Hyk,  Elaine Tucker, Belfast, Harlan McLaughlin, Searsport and Barbara Moore, Indian Island 9min15sec.

* Army Corps of Engineer staffer Mark Hable 6min23sec

* Maine BEP & Staff debate  then vote not to assume jurisdiction  41 minutes

Notes: The refusal was made despite voluminous requests they do so from a wide spectrum of  Penobscot Bay user groups area residents and partisans.

The people and their attorneys  explained in detail how the project to dig up nearly a million pounds of centuries-old sediment from the edges of Searsport Harbor, then dump it into waters and onto the bayfloor area shared by Northport and Islesboro,  would shut down lobster fisheries in those waters for three years or more, would kill generations of lobsters at the sites and  wreak havoc with Maine's lobster "brand"  in regional national and global markets  - already beset by the  permanent lobstering closure of lower Penobscot River for chronic mercury contamination.

But it was for naught.

Searsport Mega Dredge: the Four Criteria that the dredge project must meet to be taken up by the BEP

Requests for Maine Board of Environmental Protection to take Jurisdiction over Searsport mega dredge application must meet at least three of these four criteria.

* Will have an environmental or economic impact in more than one municipality,     territory or county;
*  Involves an activity not previously permitted or licensed in the State;
* Is likely to come under significant public scrutiny; and
* Is located in more than one municipality, territory or county.

Let's look at those four in regard to this dredge project:

* Will have an environmental or economic impact in more than one municipality, territory or county.  
YES.  Up to six towns.The sediments would be dredged in  Searsport  and dumped in waters shared by Belfast and Islesboro. In addition the plume from the spoils would likely spread to Northport's waters.  Bangor civic organizations have declared that their city will be significantly benefited by the dredge project. Finally some of the waste would be landfilled. Local options are limited; it may need to go to the Orrington landfill.

*  Involves an activity not previously permitted or licensed in the State; 
YES.  Never has so much spoils been dug out from one Maine harbor, and then  dumped (approximately 1,000 bargeloads)  into one location in inshore state waters.

Never has the state of Maine proposed approving such an economically damaging project on behalf of two foreign oil companies  that officials admit would suppress the lobster fisheries and mussel farming of at least two towns  for up to three years  -  with NO compensation - for a dredge project the applicant itself  freely admits will  at best save two or thee ships a year from having to wait in the Searsport anchorage a few hours before offloading at their Mack Point terminals

* Is likely to come under significant public scrutiny
YES The project has been and will continue to be under a great deal of public scrutiny! It has pitted towns against one another - Belfast and Islesboro against Searsport and Bangor.  Public  meetings and hearings have been held by municipalities,  by federal and state agencies and by non government organizations, to assist the public in their scrutiny of,  and observations about, this dredge proposal 

* Is located in more than one municipality, territory or county. 
YES. The dredging would take plan in Searsport, the dredge materials would be disposed of in waters shared by Belfast and Islesboro.

Looks like the proposed dredging project easily meets all four criteria!

More info on the criteria click here

Searsport Harbor Mega-dredge plan: Board of Enviro Protection to decide if it will take over state decisionmaking.

Searsport Harbor Super-Dredge/Dump Plan:
Will the Maine Board of Environmental Protection  take over  state decisionmaking on controversial plan for biggest Maine dredge project ever?

On July 16th the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) will hold a hearing on requests that it take over decisionmaking  about the Army Corps of Engineers application to dredge up nearly 900,000 cubic yards of sediments from outer Searsport Harbor and nearby Long Cove,then dump them  several miles away at a site between Belfast and Islesboro Island. The Board has four criteria for deciding; at least 3 must be met.

Below read links to the documents being supplied to the BEP by Commissioner Patty Aho about the  incredibly controversial Searsport Navigation Improvement Project.
More than 30 individuals and groups (including Friends of Penobscot Bay) are calling for the BEP to "assume jurisdiction" over the project.

Request for Board to take Jurisdiction. Staff: James Beyer, Bureau of Land Quality
* Staff Memo
* Criteria for Board Jurisdiction:  Excerpts from Statute and Rule
* Commissioner Aho’s June 24, 2015 Determination on Board Jurisdiction

Excerpts from the Application:
* Public Review Draft:  Environmental Assessment April 2013
* Searsport Harbor Federal Navigation Maintenance & Improvement Project:  April 2015 Update
* Letter from Town of Islesboro:  May 27, 2015 Request for Board Jurisdiction
* Islesboro Islands Trust:  June 1, 2015 Request for Board Jurisdiction
* Letter from Kim Ervin Tucker:  June 1, 2015 Request for Board Jurisdiction
* Additional Requests for Board Jurisdiction   (FOPB is on that list)

News: Fishermen, environmental activists urge state officials to revisit dredging plans- Republican Journal stlory

Fishermen, environmental activists urge state officials to revisit dredging plans

Department of Marine Resources hearing attracts more than 100 people

By Ethan Andrews | Jun 12, 2015

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services2

Photo by: Ethan AndrewsLobsterman Wayne Canning speaks at a public meeting with Maine Department of Marine Resources officials in Searsport, June 9. Canning was among a number of fishermen who voiced concerns about a major dredging project planned for the winter.

Enlarge...

SEARSPORT — Fishermen and activists warned officials from the Department of Marine Resources June 9 that a "calamity of turbidity," seven years' bad catch and other hazards await the fishing industry if a major dredging at Mack Point marine terminal goes ahead as planned.

More than 100 people came to the public meeting at Searsport District High School. Many were dressed in red — the color of boiled lobsters and, on this night, solidarity among local interests opposed to a plan by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to deepen and widen the navigation channel into the port.

Dredging is scheduled to take place between November 2015 and March 2016.

The purpose, according to the Army Corps, is to accommodate larger cargo ships at Mack Point, which is one of three deep-water ports in the state.

Opponents of the plan, which would entail dredging 900,000 cubic yards of material from the bay floor and dumping it at a site northwest of Islesboro, fear the dredging will disperse a legacy of toxic materials left over from decades of heavy industry around Penobscot Bay.

Tuesday night, several speakers with marine biology credentials added another concern — that disturbing the dredge area and disposal site could release significant amounts of methane gas.

Joseph Kelley, a professor of marine biology at the University of Maine who has worked extensively on mapping the seafloor of the Gulf of Maine, said the methane would have come from organic matter that grew in marshes 10,000 to 12,000 years ago when the sea level was lower than it is today. That material would have been covered in mud when sea levels rose and undergone a gradual anaerobic decomposition, creating methane gas in the process, he said.

Kelley said the "pockmarks" at the disposal site, which appear as craters on maps of the seafloor, looked too steep to exist in an active sedimentary environment.

This opinion was echoed by David Laing, a retired geologist who attributed the shape to methane and water compounds called clathrates.

"In other words, something's coming out of those pits on a fairly regular basis to maintain that topographic form," he said. Laing said clathrates hold their form but could break down and release methane if disturbed by disposal dredge spoils.

This combined with the unknown effects of currents on the disposed sediment could lead to what Kim Ervin Tucker, an attorney for several fishermen's associations and environmental and small business advocacy groups, would later call a "calamity of turbidity" that could devastate fishing in the area.

That prospect was too risky for some fishermen who have made their living selling healthy crustaceans and shellfish.

David Black, a Belfast lobsterman, said lobster landings have doubled in the past four years, largely as a result of careful management of the fishery by lobstermen themselves. The dredging project threatens to undo that work, he said.

Matt Samuels, who works out of Rockport, said landings fell off for two to three years in the area where he fishes after dredging spoils from Belfast Harbor were dumped nearby.

Fishermen and environmental watchdogs have generally supported "maintenance dredging," which would remove drifts and return the channel to its most recent dredged depth.

On Tuesday, there was talk about a third idea proposed in a report by Dawson & Associates. Islesboro Islands Trust commissioned the study from the Washington, D.C.-based firm, which specializes in regulatory and environmental issues relating to federal waters.

The so-called "Dawson alternative" would entail dredging around the piers at the cargo terminal to the depth proposed by the Army Corps and limiting the dredging in the navigation channel to basic maintenance. The material would be brought upland instead of being dumped elsewhere in the bay.

According to the report, this combination would fulfill most of the goals of the original proposal with much less dredging, and as a result, fewer environmental risks.

"I think we'd all get along quite well that way," said Wayne Canning, a longtime Penobscot Bay lobsterman.

Canning said if the larger dredging project went wrong and the catch was depleted or contaminated, local fishermen could be out of work for years.

"This whole thing is high risk for a guy on my end," he said.

Julie Eaton, a lobsterman from Deer Isle, echoed concerns that the dredging could wipe out some of the best lobster fishing in the state and challenged the assertion by dredging supporters that large boats can't navigate the channel at low tide today. Eaton said she has traps in a shoal area that can't be reached by boat at low tide and has done just fine.

"I organize my day so I get there at high tide," she said, drawing a round of laughter from the crowd. "And I'm just a little fisherman. The captains of these big tankers should be able to do the same thing."

Steven Tanguay, co-owner of Searsport Shores campground, talked about town efforts to restore the clam flats in Long Cove after decades of pre-Clean Water Act pollution, a jet fuel spill in the '70s and construction of the Sears Island Causeway, which environmental advocates blame for disrupting aspects of the marine ecosystem. The recovery has been slow, he said, but last year the town sold 100 recreational clamming permits.

Tony Kulik of Belfast said he was told "off the record" that the dredging was "a done deal" among other government agencies, leaving DMR as the last hope for opponents.

"Somebody in government has got to stand up for the fishermen," he said.

Comments from Tuesday night's meeting will be considered in a recommendation by the DMR commissioner to the Department of Environmental Protection.

Denis Nault, a biologist and environmental review coordinator with DMR who listened to testimony on Tuesday, said the agency would compare this project with others to the extent possible — a dredging in Portland, for example, had removed a similar amount of material but was different in that it was offshore — and consider any relevant scientific studies.

"I understand people have a feeling for these things," he said. "But I have to look at science and data."

Dredge Talk at 2015 Maine Fishermens Forum: Searsport megadredge plan not discussed!

DMR's Kohl Kanwit 

As predicted, the 3 agencies chiefly involved in reviewing the controversial Searsport Harbor mega-dredge plan steered clear of the topic in their all-about-the-process talk at Maine Fishermen's Forum. Though one of the proposed dredge spoil dumpsites was literally within view of meeting participants!

Hosted by DMR public health director Kohn Kanwit, the speakers from Army Corps and DEP asserted ignorance of the Searsport "channel widening project and wandered over the well trodden ground of dredging basics.DMR's Denis Nault, too, focused his presentation to non-local dredgery. Here are MP3s of each speaker and of the Q&A session.

1. Introduction by Kanwit and Army Corps Mike Walsh 18min
2. Maine DEP John Cullen 5min 25sec
3. Maine DMR Denis Nault 12 min 25sec
4. Question and Answer 1  10min 15sec  
5. Question and Answer 2  6min 30sec 
6. Question and Answer 3  8min 47sec //
7. Question and Answer 4 to end   7min 55sec  
8. Walsh says  Searsport dredge not on meeting off topic 14sec

Mike Walsh, Army Corps of Engineers

The audience was there to hear these "officials" describe this biggest ever dredge project  in Maine.  
Instead, Army Corps' Mike Walsh professed ignorance of the Searsport project and did an 18 minute "all about dredging" powerpoint snoozer.  

Then DEP's John Cullen  stepped up to the plate. Mercifully brief, Cullen also informed the audience that he knew nothing about the Searsport megadredge and, like Walsh rambled on with generalities about dredge permit reviewing basics. 

Cullen was followed by DMR's Denis Nault, who frittered away 12

DMR's Denis Nault

minutes describing - for the upteenth time to most of the audience - even more generalities about the dredging process. 

 Other officials lurked in the audience, occasionally popping up to add their two cents.

Jay Clement, Army Corps of Engineers

These included Army Corps of Engineers   project reviewer Jay Clement, who put in a few words once he saw  how the "know nothing" stance of the other 3 officials was angering the audience.

DMR attorney Meredith Mendelson popped up toward the end and unhelpfully brushed aside citizen concerns raised about the cumulative impacts of industrialization on the upper bay and lower river that the dredge project would induce. 

Meredith Mendelson, DMR

Mendelson seems to believe that because the project had gotten its earliest approvals  years ago,and indudstrial interests favored it, it was a done deal. Too late to divert the mammoth project an inch from its projected course. Admirably informed in fishery management, it appears that she needs a refresher course on Maine Site Law. 

Several members of the audience spoke out. 

Richard Nelson

Lobsterman Richard Nelson  of Friendship challenged the idea of holding a dredging info meeting that ignored the local dredging project. 

Ron Huber of Friends of Penobsot Bay agreed and further criticized the DMR and MDEP for ignoring the cumulative impacts law.Vivian Newman of South Thomaston, and several others also spoke up.